First smoking, and now over-indulging on snacks...

Gato_Solo

Gato_Solo

Out-freaking-standing OTC member
Okay. Smoking is bad for you. I agree. If someone asks you to put out your cigarette, you should be polite about it and do so. There was, and is, no need for legislation to limit my personal habits unless my habit impacts directly on your person. Most people will disagree, and cite "second-hand smoke" as the reason I can't light up in public, and demand that my right to pollute my own lungs be violated. They will also cite several factoids about how my habit will cost them more money because my health care will be more expensive as I age. Guess what? Those people are winning with their whining, but there is a cost to this. There is one thing that costs more in health care costs than smoking. Can you guess what it is?
Now here's the kicker...

If you are one of these over-indulgers, does that give me the right to leave a restaurant/snack bar when I think you've had enough?
 
I dunno, Gato. Maybe this is simply evolution attempting to elminate from the gene pool all those people who eat junk food to excess. ;)
 
Where ya been Gato? McDoanlds is already the victim of several exploratory lawsuits. Oh, yea, you we protecting our right to over-indulge. You did well, too bad we forgot to get the enemy within.
 
Smoking is your habit, and you do not want someone else to tell you what to do or not do.

The byproduct of your habit is smoke. Smoke gets into my clothes, my hair, my lungs.

My habit is Beer. The byproduct of my habit is urine. How would you like it if I stood on a chair and pissed all over your clothes?

Thank you for not smoking.
 
Inhales deeply and blows smoke up J's arse....oh the indignation of an ex-smoker ;)

If you're gonna piss all over me, please give me the address of the hospital you would like to wake up in, so I can send flowers.

BTW, I'm a smoker (again), but I only smoke in designated areas in public or not at all - not just because I respect other people's right to live in a smoke free environment, but basically because I think it looks common when people walk around smoking (I know, I have a warped mind sometimes), just as it looks common for people to walk around drinking.
 
Squiggy said:
My habit is chili...:fart:
Click to expand...

Hahaha - Squiggy! :D

That reminded me of an old Steve Martin joke.

He's sitting in a restaurant enjoying his meal, when a guy at the next table leans over and says, "Do you mind if I smoke?"
Steve replies, "I don't know, do you mind if I fart?"

Hehe - classic Steve Martin. :lloyd:
 
Ms Ann Thrope said:
I dunno, Gato. Maybe this is simply evolution attempting to elminate from the gene pool all those people who eat junk food to excess. ;)
Click to expand...

That I would have to agree with.

If a person sits there eating fatty and salty foods, it puts their health at risk, but not the people around them, unlike smoking.
Eating unhealthy food around a person does not increase their chances of getting lung or throat cancer, as a matter of fact, physically, eating a packet of super greasy salted chips would not affect the health of those around the person.

Unless those around the person had serious mental problems and threw terrible fits when they saw others eating such unhealthy foods, then that would be a different story.
 
Uh huh - but, just like with smokers, the cost of healthcare rises because treating these people is also expensive, which filters down to your med aid contributions etc.

And, watching someone gorge themselves on super greasy food may very well affect my health, as I may not be able to resist the urge to start throwing up....which could lead to loss of electrolites and water, thereby leading to dehydration ;)
 
Point taken about the rise in health care. But in the case of smoking and second hand smoke, it would rise even more because two people are being affected instead of one, that is the smoker and the one affected by the smoker's 2nd hand smoke.

---
Alot of greasy unhealthy foods are usually very well presented, thus, making them more appetizing towards customers.
Well, this kinda excludes the way the burger from McDonalds is usually handled with the sloppy bun and all but the point is most unhealthy food is rather well presented and you usually can't see the "sugary goodness" hidden in some of the bread rolls;)
 
Ah well, see - it's kinda lost on me anyway, I hate fast foods, would rather cook for myself.....at least that way I know it's not mystery meat :D
 
And that is why you buy a decent sized fillet or rump and mince your own - goodness knows what Mr Butcher does in his shop........blech, the more I think of it the more I believe I should revert to vegetarianism again :sick:

Guess Mystery Meat is kinda like Wonder Bra....once the wrapping comes of you wonder where the meat's gone......and why it's called meat.

But then again - Eat yer mat...if ye don't eat yer meat ye can't have any pudding!
 
Gotnolegs said:
Smoking is your habit, and you do not want someone else to tell you what to do or not do.

The byproduct of your habit is smoke. Smoke gets into my clothes, my hair, my lungs.

My habit is Beer. The byproduct of my habit is urine. How would you like it if I stood on a chair and pissed all over your clothes?

Thank you for not smoking.
Click to expand...

Only a fool would equate my smoking with urination. If you bothered to read my post fully, you might get a clue. ;)
 
Cheese said:
Point taken about the rise in health care. But in the case of smoking and second hand smoke, it would rise even more because two people are being affected instead of one, that is the smoker and the one affected by the smoker's 2nd hand smoke.

---
Alot of greasy unhealthy foods are usually very well presented, thus, making them more appetizing towards customers.
Well, this kinda excludes the way the burger from McDonalds is usually handled with the sloppy bun and all but the point is most unhealthy food is rather well presented and you usually can't see the "sugary goodness" hidden in some of the bread rolls;)
Click to expand...

BTW...second hand smoke is not proven. It never has been proven, and, if it ever is, I'd like to see the results. You get more problems following a bus for 3 minutes than you do sitting in a smokey bar for 2 hours.
 
I wish you people would stop this carping so I can enjoy my Camels and donuts in peace. :D
 
chcr said:
I wish you people would stop this carping so I can enjoy my Camels and donuts in peace. :D
Click to expand...


got another one that you wanna share?(not the donuts either)
 
Oh I love these arguments
second-hand smoke doesn't increase the risk of heart disease or lung cancer



Passive Smoking Doesn't Cause Cancer -
Official Byline: Victoria MacDonald, Health Correspondent
Dateline: March 8, 1998

The world's leading health organisation has
withheld from publication a study which shows that
not only might there be no link between passive
smoking and lung cancer but that it could even
have a protective effect. The astounding results
are set to throw wide open the debate on passive
smoking health risks.

The World Health Organisation, which commissioned
the 12-centre, seven-country European study has
failed to make the findings public, and has
instead produced only a summary of the results in
an internal report. Despite repeated approaches,
nobody at the WHO headquarters in Geneva would
comment on the findings last week.

The findings are certain to be an embarrassment to
the WHO, which has spent years and vast sums on
anti-smoking and anti-tobacco campaigns. The study
is one of the largest ever to look at the link
between passive smoking - inhaling other people's
smoke - and lung cancer, and had been eagerly
awaited by medical experts and campaigning groups.
Yet the scientists have found that there was no
statistical evidence that passive smoking caused
lung cancer.

The research compared 650 lung cancer patients
with 1,542 healthy people. It looked at people who
were married to smokers, worked with smokers, both
worked and were married to smokers, and those who
grew up with smokers. The results are consistent
with there being no additional risk for a person
living or working with a smoker and could be
consistent with passive smoke having a protective
effect against lung cancer.

The summary, seen by The Sunday Telegraph, also
states: "There was no association between lung
cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood." A
spokesman for Action on Smoking and Health said
the findings "seem rather surprising given the
evidence from other major reviews on the subject
which have shown a clear association between
passive smoking and a number of diseases."

Dr Chris Proctor, head of science for BAT
Industries, the tobacco group, said the findings
had to be taken seriously. "If this study cannot
find any statistically valid risk you have to ask
if there can be any risk at all. "It confirms what
we and many other scientists have long believed,
that while smoking in public may be annoying to
some non-smokers, the science does not show that
being around a smoker is a lung-cancer risk."
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top